The clients are most important

Listen to this article

Changing firms is a reality of the practice of law. In just 30 minutes of research, I found myriad surveys with data on how often both associates and partners change firms. At a high level, it appears that associates change jobs every three to five years and that half of lateral partners who switch will move to another firm within five years.

Changing jobs is stressful. Just the switch alone as a lawyer involves moving your professional practice, advising authorities of your new firm, re-establishing goodwill and more. From a business perspective, there are greater sources of stress. The departing lawyer does not know if all clients will follow. The firm may be concerned about firm clients leaving with the departing lawyer.

Because switching firms impacts clients, lawyers who leave firms have obligations that are different than most workers. Lawyers must put the clients’ needs first, even when leaving a job.

There are numerous cases, articles and ethics opinions that discuss a lawyer’s obligations when leaving a firm. In Maryland, the seminal case is Attorney Grievance Commission v. Potter, 380 Md. 128, 844 A.2d 367 (2004). I wrote about Potter several years ago in this very space.  But Potter addressed a slightly different scenario, and the holding is narrow. Potter was primarily concerned with the destruction of the clients’ files. Thus, at its core, Potter stands primarily for the proposition that files belong to clients. Files cannot be taken without client permission or without the knowledge of the law firm.

While Potter hits some important points, the opinion does not address every part of changing firms. For example, while Potter identifies a Rule 1.4 obligation to notify clients because lawyers have a duty to keep clients informed of the status of matters so the client may make informed decisions, Potter does not give any guidance to Maryland lawyers about which clients should be notified, how to notify clients or when the clients should be notified.

There are, however, plenty of other resources available. Among other reliable sources are ABA Ethics 489, D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 273, and North Carolina State Bar 2025 Formal Ethics Opinion 1. I cite the North Carolina opinion because it is recent, thorough review of the same questions Maryland lawyers face: who must be notified, when notice must be given and by whom along with what the joint letter should say.

In summary fashion, the answers are exactly as you might expect, both the lawyer and the law firm must work together to provide notice to all affected clients in a timely fashion that allows them to make a free decision. As difficult as it may be, the answer is the same as almost every other ethics issue, the clients’ needs come first.

Craig Brodsky is a partner with Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann LLP in Baltimore. His legal ethics column appears monthly. He can be reached at [email protected].